It was always logical to me to think that if there's no God we don't have objective morality, since no one would be there to create it. However, I've seen some argue that such morality does exist with no need of deities.

The common argument for this resolution is "Since there are things that are good and bad for us, there are objctive morals." But... isn't that on a smaller scale? Outside of our society, throughout our universe, these wouldn't exist, right? The universe won't care about our well-being. If we were wiped out, it wouldn't care. Even if we were important to the existence of this universe, and it would perish with us, it won't mean anything to it, as it isn't living. Wouldn't this make our "Earth" morale subjective?

At 4/7/2012 5:08:26 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:It was always logical to me to think that if there's no God we don't have objective morality, since no one would be there to create it. However, I've seen some argue that such morality does exist with no need of deities.

The common argument for this resolution is "Since there are things that are good and bad for us, there are objctive morals." But... isn't that on a smaller scale? Outside of our society, throughout our universe, these wouldn't exist, right? The universe won't care about our well-being. If we were wiped out, it wouldn't care. Even if we were important to the existence of this universe, and it would perish with us, it won't mean anything to it, as it isn't living. Wouldn't this make our "Earth" morale subjective?

At 4/7/2012 5:08:26 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:It was always logical to me to think that if there's no God we don't have objective morality, since no one would be there to create it. However, I've seen some argue that such morality does exist with no need of deities.

The common argument for this resolution is "Since there are things that are good and bad for us, there are objctive morals." But... isn't that on a smaller scale? Outside of our society, throughout our universe, these wouldn't exist, right? The universe won't care about our well-being. If we were wiped out, it wouldn't care. Even if we were important to the existence of this universe, and it would perish with us, it won't mean anything to it, as it isn't living. Wouldn't this make our "Earth" morale subjective?

I'm actually arguing against a proponent of irreligious moral objectivity. Though I personally believe otherwise, I would think that one could argue that moral objectivity refers to any system that has an optimal good and evil, regardless of what individual people may think.

Note, this has nothing to do with aliens or the rest of the universe.

If there is *one* way to act that will positively benefit our species, then it is an objective good, regardless of whether or not we know it.

I personally have a LOOOT of issues with this notion, but I think that's the general gist.

: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.

At 4/7/2012 5:08:26 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:It was always logical to me to think that if there's no God we don't have objective morality, since no one would be there to create it. However, I've seen some argue that such morality does exist with no need of deities.

The common argument for this resolution is "Since there are things that are good and bad for us, there are objctive morals." But... isn't that on a smaller scale? Outside of our society, throughout our universe, these wouldn't exist, right? The universe won't care about our well-being. If we were wiped out, it wouldn't care. Even if we were important to the existence of this universe, and it would perish with us, it won't mean anything to it, as it isn't living. Wouldn't this make our "Earth" morale subjective?

Ok, so basically your argument is that God has to exist so that we can feel as if we have a purpose in the Universe? Why do we have to have a purpose? Why do morals have to exist? Can you prove that morality objectively exists?

At 4/7/2012 9:46:08 AM, royalpaladin wrote:Ok, so basically your argument is that God has to exist so that we can feel as if we have a purpose in the Universe? Why do we have to have a purpose? Why do morals have to exist? Can you prove that morality objectively exists?

That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying that there are some people who argue a god-less moral objectivity, and if we take into context the fact that these morally objective codes have no meaning of value outside the human race, then it would actually be "subjective" because only we as a race care about our own progression.

: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.

At 4/7/2012 9:46:08 AM, royalpaladin wrote:Ok, so basically your argument is that God has to exist so that we can feel as if we have a purpose in the Universe? Why do we have to have a purpose? Why do morals have to exist? Can you prove that morality objectively exists?

4 questions and none of them have anything to do with what he said. Very impressive Ma'am.

At 4/7/2012 5:08:26 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:It was always logical to me to think that if there's no God we don't have objective morality, since no one would be there to create it. However, I've seen some argue that such morality does exist with no need of deities.

The common argument for this resolution is "Since there are things that are good and bad for us, there are objctive morals." But... isn't that on a smaller scale? Outside of our society, throughout our universe, these wouldn't exist, right? The universe won't care about our well-being. If we were wiped out, it wouldn't care. Even if we were important to the existence of this universe, and it would perish with us, it won't mean anything to it, as it isn't living. Wouldn't this make our "Earth" morale subjective?

I'm an atheist and I believe in objective morality. Haven't quite figured out how yet, but I will address your second paragraph.

The universe doesn't care about anything but I don't see what that has to do with objectivity. The universe doesn't care whether anything is wiped out of existence, but that doesn't make the existence of everything subjective.

At 4/7/2012 9:46:08 AM, royalpaladin wrote:Ok, so basically your argument is that God has to exist so that we can feel as if we have a purpose in the Universe? Why do we have to have a purpose? Why do morals have to exist? Can you prove that morality objectively exists?

4 questions and none of them have anything to do with what he said. Very impressive Ma'am.

LOL

*Applause*

That's a first!

: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.

At 4/7/2012 5:08:26 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:It was always logical to me to think that if there's no God we don't have objective morality, since no one would be there to create it. However, I've seen some argue that such morality does exist with no need of deities.

The common argument for this resolution is "Since there are things that are good and bad for us, there are objctive morals." But... isn't that on a smaller scale? Outside of our society, throughout our universe, these wouldn't exist, right? The universe won't care about our well-being. If we were wiped out, it wouldn't care. Even if we were important to the existence of this universe, and it would perish with us, it won't mean anything to it, as it isn't living. Wouldn't this make our "Earth" morale subjective?

I'm an atheist and I believe in objective morality. Haven't quite figured out how yet, but I will address your second paragraph.:

So you don't believe in a theistic set of objective morals, but you believe in an atheistic set of objective morals, but aren't sure why? Then what basis do you have to believe in it if you don't even have a reason for why you believe it? A gut feeling?

The universe doesn't care about anything but I don't see what that has to do with objectivity. The universe doesn't care whether anything is wiped out of existence, but that doesn't make the existence of everything subjective.:

He's asking who arbitrates the alleged objective morals? Who or what imputed that?

It doesn't matter if morals are objective or not, if someone says "I'm going to rape this woman, since objective morals don't exist, your opinion on the issue is just as valid as mine" I would be like "We'll see if the police agree with you"...Basically, things can be true simply because we declare them to be true if they came from us. A good example would be "Spelling France with a B is incorrect", someone come along and say "Well spelling isn't objective, your opinion is just as good as mine" but of course this would be absurd because we have already established that the spelling of France includes no B.

So as a society, we have declared our morals. Whether they are objective or not doesn't matter, because if you rape your going to jail anyway.

At 4/7/2012 2:58:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:It doesn't matter if morals are objective or not, if someone says "I'm going to rape this woman, since objective morals don't exist, your opinion on the issue is just as valid as mine" I would be like "We'll see if the police agree with you"...Basically, things can be true simply because we declare them to be true if they came from us. A good example would be "Spelling France with a B is incorrect", someone come along and say "Well spelling isn't objective, your opinion is just as good as mine" but of course this would be absurd because we have already established that the spelling of France includes no B.

So as a society, we have declared our morals. Whether they are objective or not doesn't matter, because if you rape your going to jail anyway.

At 4/7/2012 9:42:20 AM, Kleptin wrote:I'm actually arguing against a proponent of irreligious moral objectivity. Though I personally believe otherwise, I would think that one could argue that moral objectivity refers to any system that has an optimal good and evil, regardless of what individual people may think.

Note, this has nothing to do with aliens or the rest of the universe.

If there is *one* way to act that will positively benefit our species, then it is an objective good, regardless of whether or not we know it.

I personally have a LOOOT of issues with this notion, but I think that's the general gist.

Well, still, on a larger scale, our existence means nothing. If things are good or bad to us, they are not to the world. The same applies to aliens.

At 4/7/2012 9:46:08 AM, royalpaladin wrote:Ok, so basically your argument is that God has to exist so that we can feel as if we have a purpose in the Universe? Why do we have to have a purpose? Why do morals have to exist? Can you prove that morality objectively exists?

Yeah... That was... odd...

At 4/7/2012 9:50:35 AM, Kleptin wrote:That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying that there are some people who argue a god-less moral objectivity, and if we take into context the fact that these morally objective codes have no meaning of value outside the human race, then it would actually be "subjective" because only we as a race care about our own progression.

Yeah, that sums it up well. Exactly what I meant.

At 4/7/2012 10:12:31 AM, tulle wrote:The universe doesn't care about anything but I don't see what that has to do with objectivity. The universe doesn't care whether anything is wiped out of existence, but that doesn't make the existence of everything subjective.

It doesn't render existence subjective but it does render morale. Can we do anything bad or good to the world, objectively? Well, not really. We can corrupt the Earth, it will be bad for us, even though the universe as a whole won't be affected by it. It won't feel pain or discomfort. It will just continue going on. That's why morality is subjective.

I would actually like to hear your opinion on this, as you seem to argue for objective morality without a deity.

At 4/7/2012 2:58:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:It doesn't matter if morals are objective or not, if someone says "I'm going to rape this woman, since objective morals don't exist, your opinion on the issue is just as valid as mine" I would be like "We'll see if the police agree with you"...Basically, things can be true simply because we declare them to be true if they came from us. A good example would be "Spelling France with a B is incorrect", someone come along and say "Well spelling isn't objective, your opinion is just as good as mine" but of course this would be absurd because we have already established that the spelling of France includes no B.

So as a society, we have declared our morals. Whether they are objective or not doesn't matter, because if you rape your going to jail anyway.

What you've said is true, but this forum topic was about whether morale exists without a deity, not about does it matter if it exists or not.

If something comes from us, and there is nothing in the universe which can contradict it, then humans can declare truth about something. The idea of spelling comes from us, there is nothing in the universe which can contradict the idea that you spell France with a B, therefore we can declare truth on that. The idea of morals comes from us, there is nothing in the universe which can contradict the idea that rape is wrong for a society, therefore humans can declare the truth that rape is wrong for a society.

At 4/7/2012 2:58:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:It doesn't matter if morals are objective or not, if someone says "I'm going to rape this woman, since objective morals don't exist, your opinion on the issue is just as valid as mine" I would be like "We'll see if the police agree with you"...Basically, things can be true simply because we declare them to be true if they came from us. A good example would be "Spelling France with a B is incorrect", someone come along and say "Well spelling isn't objective, your opinion is just as good as mine" but of course this would be absurd because we have already established that the spelling of France includes no B.

So as a society, we have declared our morals. Whether they are objective or not doesn't matter, because if you rape your going to jail anyway.

Wow.

Yeah, everything apart from that makes sense. If I said that a mouse weights more than an elephant, it would be true by this premise, as I declared it to be true and it was from a human being.

At 4/7/2012 3:15:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:If something comes from us, and there is nothing in the universe which can contradict it, then humans can declare truth about something. The idea of spelling comes from us, there is nothing in the universe which can contradict the idea that you spell France with a B, therefore we can declare truth on that. The idea of morals comes from us, there is nothing in the universe which can contradict the idea that rape is wrong for a society, therefore humans can declare the truth that rape is wrong for a society.

You forgot about aliens. And even so, things are only wrong for our society, nothing else. Thus, morality is still subjective.

From what I've noticed atheists and theists seem to have an entirely different view on morality altogether. Atheists (from my experience) base morality on logic. Murder is bad because it is un-beneficial to society (or yourself maybe). Theists would believe that a basic moral code just exists within us. It's like an instinct or a sense. Murder is wrong because murder is wrong. You can't construct a syllogism to prove that it's wrong, it just is. However I disagree with the atheist view. Yes they can prove that we shouldn't murder, but the reasons we shouldn't murder are not for moral reasons according to them. All they prove is that we shouldn't murder because the final outcome would be negative to our well-being. That's not morality.

"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)

At 4/7/2012 4:05:50 PM, phantom wrote:From what I've noticed atheists and theists seem to have an entirely different view on morality altogether. Atheists (from my experience) base morality on logic. Murder is bad because it is un-beneficial to society (or yourself maybe). Theists would believe that a basic moral code just exists within us. It's like an instinct or a sense. Murder is wrong because murder is wrong. You can't construct a syllogism to prove that it's wrong, it just is. However I disagree with the atheist view. Yes they can prove that we shouldn't murder, but the reasons we shouldn't murder are not for moral reasons according to them. All they prove is that we shouldn't murder because the final outcome would be negative to our well-being. That's not morality.

Why not?

: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.

At 4/7/2012 4:05:50 PM, phantom wrote:From what I've noticed atheists and theists seem to have an entirely different view on morality altogether. Atheists (from my experience) base morality on logic. Murder is bad because it is un-beneficial to society (or yourself maybe). Theists would believe that a basic moral code just exists within us. It's like an instinct or a sense. Murder is wrong because murder is wrong. You can't construct a syllogism to prove that it's wrong, it just is. However I disagree with the atheist view. Yes they can prove that we shouldn't murder, but the reasons we shouldn't murder are not for moral reasons according to them. All they prove is that we shouldn't murder because the final outcome would be negative to our well-being. That's not morality.

Why not?

Because all it proves is that we shouldn't murder, because the outcome is disagreeable. It doesn't prove that we shouldn't murder because it's wrong.

"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)

At 4/7/2012 4:11:10 PM, Kleptin wrote:You're right in identifying the difference between the Christian and the Atheist viewpoints on what morals are.

I wouldn't say I was pointing out the differences of Christian morality and Atheist morality. Theist morality is more like it. Christian morality just sounds like morals derived from the Bible rather than from our senses.

You didn't catch yourself making the same mistake when you presented your argument.

What do you mean?

"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)

At 4/7/2012 4:05:50 PM, phantom wrote:From what I've noticed atheists and theists seem to have an entirely different view on morality altogether. Atheists (from my experience) base morality on logic. Murder is bad because it is un-beneficial to society (or yourself maybe). Theists would believe that a basic moral code just exists within us. It's like an instinct or a sense. Murder is wrong because murder is wrong. You can't construct a syllogism to prove that it's wrong, it just is. However I disagree with the atheist view. Yes they can prove that we shouldn't murder, but the reasons we shouldn't murder are not for moral reasons according to them. All they prove is that we shouldn't murder because the final outcome would be negative to our well-being. That's not morality.

Why not?

Because all it proves is that we shouldn't murder, because the outcome is disagreeable. It doesn't prove that we shouldn't murder because it's wrong.

Why would an atheist need to prove that murder is wrong because its wrong?

: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.

There are at least three distinct problems with Atheistic Moral Platonism.

1.) It is unintelligible.

What does it man to say, for example, that the moral value "justice" just exists? It's understandable to say that some person is just, but it's astonishing to posit that in the absence of any people, justice itself exists. Moral values are properties of persons and its problematic to comprehend how justice can exist merely as an abstraction.

2.) It provides no basis for moral duties.

For the sake of the argument, let's suppose moral values simply exist. How does that result in any moral obligations for me? Why would I have a moral duty to, for example, be charitable? What or who lays such an obligation upon me? In this worldview, too, moral vices like hatred, lethargy, selfishness, greed, etc, presumably also exist on their own as abstractions. So why align ourselves with one set of these abstractly existing entities and not others?

3.) It's cosmically improbable that an blind evolutionary process would discharge exactly the sort of creatures who correspond to the abstractly existing realm of moral values?

It's almost as if the moral realm knew we were coming. It's fantastically more probable to posit that both the natural realm and the moral realm are under the supremacy of a God who provided us both the moral law and the laws of nature than to believe that these two independent realms just so happened to complement each other so fully.

At 4/7/2012 4:05:50 PM, phantom wrote:From what I've noticed atheists and theists seem to have an entirely different view on morality altogether. Atheists (from my experience) base morality on logic. Murder is bad because it is un-beneficial to society (or yourself maybe). Theists would believe that a basic moral code just exists within us. It's like an instinct or a sense. Murder is wrong because murder is wrong. You can't construct a syllogism to prove that it's wrong, it just is. However I disagree with the atheist view. Yes they can prove that we shouldn't murder, but the reasons we shouldn't murder are not for moral reasons according to them. All they prove is that we shouldn't murder because the final outcome would be negative to our well-being. That's not morality.

Why not?

Because all it proves is that we shouldn't murder, because the outcome is disagreeable. It doesn't prove that we shouldn't murder because it's wrong.

Why would an atheist need to prove that murder is wrong because its wrong?

I can't help but sense your response is a little bit of a strawman from the way it's formed. Or at least, that you're trying to trap me. In order to support an assertion that objective morality exists you have to give reason why certain things are wrong. Atheists who believe in objective morality (again, from my experience) don't give reason why murder or rape is wrong. They give reason why rape or murder is un-benificiary. Morality does not correspond with the negative or positive outcome of actions.

"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)

At 4/7/2012 3:15:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:If something comes from us, and there is nothing in the universe which can contradict it, then humans can declare truth about something. The idea of spelling comes from us, there is nothing in the universe which can contradict the idea that you spell France with a B, therefore we can declare truth on that. The idea of morals comes from us, there is nothing in the universe which can contradict the idea that rape is wrong for a society, therefore humans can declare the truth that rape is wrong for a society.

Who spells France with a B?

"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"

At 4/7/2012 4:48:55 PM, SovereignDream wrote:There are at least three distinct problems with Atheistic Moral Platonism.

1.) It is unintelligible.

What does it man to say, for example, that the moral value "justice" just exists? It's understandable to say that some person is just, but it's astonishing to posit that in the absence of any people, justice itself exists. Moral values are properties of persons and its problematic to comprehend how justice can exist merely as an abstraction.

2.) It provides no basis for moral duties.

For the sake of the argument, let's suppose moral values simply exist. How does that result in any moral obligations for me? Why would I have a moral duty to, for example, be charitable? What or who lays such an obligation upon me? In this worldview, too, moral vices like hatred, lethargy, selfishness, greed, etc, presumably also exist on their own as abstractions. So why align ourselves with one set of these abstractly existing entities and not others?

3.) It's cosmically improbable that an blind evolutionary process would discharge exactly the sort of creatures who correspond to the abstractly existing realm of moral values?

It's almost as if the moral realm knew we were coming. It's fantastically more probable to posit that both the natural realm and the moral realm are under the supremacy of a God who provided us both the moral law and the laws of nature than to believe that these two independent realms just so happened to complement each other so fully.

This.

"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"